Dear all,

For someone new to ISO (having just taken over the running of the project for my company (we are still trying to get accreditation)), I stumbled across this board and have found it to be an excellent resource. I think however, it is time for me to take the plunge and ask a question!

In section 6.2.2 (e) of the standard it states that you have to keep appropriate records of education, training etc. Having spoken to the HR manager, he says that many staff, including senior directors are unwilling to provide educational details. The company has no history of asking for proof of qualifications, even though it asks for them on job descriptions/job adverts. Is this a problem in terms of getting accredited?

Also the company has recently lost a major order, and is likely to be making redundancies in the next year. There are currently no records to speak of for training or competencies. It is therefore likely to be very difficult to assess people's competencies as they are likely to be defensive (unionised manufacturing environment) believing it just to be a redundancy exercise. Does anyone have any ideas about how to overcome this hurdle?

Thanks a lot for any help you can give,

Nick

Well, from a practical business standpoint, this does not sound good. But, you might be able to squeak by an audit if your people have been around for a while, and there is not a plethora of training/ competence related problems. If this is the case, you could make job experience a major part of the criteria.

It might be good enough for an audit, but in your shoes I would sure try to start keeping some type of training records based upon the procedures in place for each process.

Craig H.

Can you save a copy of the resume` in the personnel files? I believe most places do this anyway. and I know I always spell out my education on mine. I've never given anyone a copy of my high school diploma or college degree.

Dear all,

Having spoken to the HR manager, he says that many staff, including senior directors are unwilling to provide educational details. The company has no history of asking for proof of qualifications, even though it asks for them on job descriptions/job adverts. Is this a problem in terms of getting accredited?


Nick

1st of all Nick, welcome :bigwave:

Next....the "DUH" factor starts to kick in real hard on this one. If you have some big-shots that will not provide their bonafides then your leadership should be asking some serious questions. I'd also ask the HR dude what his qual's were because he apparently ain't making it when it comes to having people meet hiring criteria.

The answer to your question about holding up your certification....it could be a factor, yes.

SteelMaiden had a good idea, and I want to add to it: what about union records? I would think there was some competency structure, education requirements and so on. Evaluations may have some of this too.

The U.S. civil service uses a set of job classifications and pay grades, where skill and education needs are defined. At various points within these levels, (GS-05, GS-06 and so on) experience is a substitute, whole or in part, for education requirements. The higher the pay grade, the more experience is required as a substitute.

You could write such a structure, but I am discouraged to hear of workers who do not want to divulge their education levels. You have a good reason for asking, after all. Perhaps they don't want to reveal skills they don't want to be asked to use...but suspicious minds would question if they are claiming education they don't have.

Is it practical to create a set of requirements and their substitutions, and have the workers "certify" them by providing names and dates of only the education/experience they officially need for their job?

Jennifer, I believe the problem is one of embarrassment. I have some of the best welders in the industry! In fact we pride ourselves on weld quality. One of these welders did not have any sort of formal education in fact he could barely read and write. So when asked to supply education his response was predictable. We could only point to his weld test and quality of weld to determine his competence.

On the other hand when I worked in electronics we certified all employees who performed soldering to a varity of Mil-Specs. This certification was backed up with a "sample board" that government inspectors could review at any time. Certification was reviewed on an annual basis including eye test.
Can any other contributers relate to this or have similar problems?
Jim Howe

Jennifer, I believe the problem is one of embarrassment. I have some of the best welders in the industry! In fact we pride ourselves on weld quality. One of these welders did not have any sort of formal education in fact he could barely read and write. So when asked to supply education his response was predictable. We could only point to his weld test and quality of weld to determine his competence.

On the other hand when I worked in electronics we certified all employees who performed soldering to a varity of Mil-Specs. This certification was backed up with a "sample board" that government inspectors could review at any time. Certification was reviewed on an annual basis including eye test.
Can any other contributers relate to this or have similar problems?
Jim Howe

Aha, now I get to climb on my soap box and say there are a good many very skilled, but illiterate--or nearly so--people. I used to tutor for Literacy Volunteers of America. The chapter leader told me of a company that she had signed up, to offer literacy lessons for their poor readers. The company took their poll, collected the names of their illiterates, and fired the lot of them. No wonder your worker didn't want to speak up.

Stats tell me that 20% of adults are functionally illiterate.

There are lots of ways to certify competency. If there aren't higher level, specific requirements, you get some control over what you declare is good for making high quality product. You can make weld competency tests, and written tests (taken orally) about weld symbology and print reading, which I suppose your welders need. Welders usually need some kind of cert, do you have NDT people who can certify welds? A certifying weld can be the same as what the welder does onthe job, but exceeding normal requirements (such as porosity or star cracks) by an appropriate degree.

It would be tricky not to overdo the thing, but you do need to make some appropriate structure and show you adhere to it. I would just encourage you to manage to embrace the various learning styles and disabilities that do not necessarily prevent us from producing excellent work.

It would be tricky not to overdo the thing, but you do need to make some appropriate structure and show you adhere to it. I would just encourage you to manage to embrace the various learning styles and disabilities that do not necessarily prevent us from producing excellent work.

Somehow I think that the interpretation of what is requiredby 6.2.2 is being extended a tad. . .

The real competancy requirements apply primarily to operating personnel affecting product quality. Yes. . . auditors and other management personnel that have an effect on product quality, the QMS and dispositioning product should also be competent to do so.

In TS-16949 there is the additional requirement for design personnel to be QUALIFIED AND competent. I believe that the catchall phrase is "based on appropriate education, training or experience. Grandfathering is out from what I have been told by Auditors. The company I have justr finished with had grandfathered when they went QS in 1996. The audits I started in January indicated that there was a gross lack of knowledge about the company, the QMS, environmental issues (ISO-14000), SPC, Calibration requirements and on and oin and on. . . This is the cost of grandfathering. The easy way out.

Somewhere along the line, you need to assess the competency of the all personnel effecting product quality and design, and make them aware of the impact their activities have on the goals and objectives stated in your quality policy, and the impact they have on customer satisfaction.

As far as your top managers go, their "mission" should be to comply with Section 5 of the ISO or TS standard. Section 6 is also theirs as far as providing the necessary resources. . .even if the assessment shows you need additional training. . .

As far as the HR Mgr/Dir goes, they are "above it all" in most companies. . . and if Top Management looks at certification and the QMS as only your responsibility. . . . there are plenty of other companies out there. . .JMHO

I keep getting caught, wriggling between these rocks of doing what is required per this and that, and doing what brings the best value while designing it in a way that will be accepted as appropriate control.

I don't want to preach to going past what is appropriate and into the ideal just for idealism's sake. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be making and maintaining a program to suit the registration standards.

Do you see what I mean? Making and maintaining programs to conform with a standard is like enslaving the organization to the standard. Maybe this is why many organizations resist ISO etc. It can demoralize people and make them resent Quality. Functions that deal closely with people (like training) run a very great risk of this, JMHO.

I keep getting caught, wriggling between these rocks of doing what is required per this and that, and doing what brings the best value while designing it in a way that will be accepted as appropriate control.

I don't want to preach to going past what is appropriate and into the ideal just for idealism's sake. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be making and maintaining a program to suit the registration standards.

Do you see what I mean? Making and maintaining programs to conform with a standard is like enslaving the organization to the standard. Maybe this is why many organizations resist ISO etc. It can demoralize people and make them resent Quality. Functions that deal closely with people (like training) run a very great risk of this, JMHO.

I understand completely. . . and do not disagree. . . IMHO, 6.2.2 is one of those sections that makes good business sense, and is general enough to allow you to tailor the process to fit your mode of operation. . . it is one of the required 6 procedures in ISO, but so what. . .as I said, to me it makes good sense to have trained, competent and aware employees.

Aha, now I get to climb on my soap box and say there are a good many very skilled, but illiterate--or nearly so--people. I used to tutor for Literacy Volunteers of America. The chapter leader told me of a company that she had signed up, to offer literacy lessons for their poor readers. The company took their poll, collected the names of their illiterates, and fired the lot of them. No wonder your worker didn't want to speak up.

Stats tell me that 20% of adults are functionally illiterate.

There are lots of ways to certify competency. If there aren't higher level, specific requirements, you get some control over what you declare is good for making high quality product. You can make weld competency tests, and written tests (taken orally) about weld symbology and print reading, which I suppose your welders need. Welders usually need some kind of cert, do you have NDT people who can certify welds? A certifying weld can be the same as what the welder does onthe job, but exceeding normal requirements (such as porosity or star cracks) by an appropriate degree.

It would be tricky not to overdo the thing, but you do need to make some appropriate structure and show you adhere to it. I would just encourage you to manage to embrace the various learning styles and disabilities that do not necessarily prevent us from producing excellent work.

Yes, of course, we are working to integrate most of these ideas and suggestions but from a personal point of view I think the issue of competence is overstated. Anyone who has knowledge of weld or solder, etc. can immediately and visually recognize good from bad. NDT is required if performing a penetration study or strength of weld and is performed on a sample basis.
It has been my experience that some people have a talent for discerning good and bad. It doesn't seem to matter which industry (weld, solder, machine, etc.) these people are present. They do not necessarily possess formal training and/or certifications, but are recognized by their peer group as being the "go-to" person when there are questions regarding the acceptance of the product.
My point is what are we trying to establish? Quality of product? Workmanship? Compliance to specifications? Are not all of these attributes reviewed during supplier qualification and first article inspections? If the Customer has accepted you as a supplier based on such specifics then what are we trying to prove?
I once knew a head football coach who stated "I don't know how much you know about football but give me a piece of chalk and a blackboard and I will find out in 30 seconds". I believe I am trying to say that competence may well be self evident!
Boy talk about a soap box! :soap:
Thanks for listning.
Jim Howe

Yes, of course, we are working to integrate most of these ideas and suggestions but from a personal point of view I think the issue of competence is overstated. Anyone who has knowledge of weld or solder, etc. can immediately and visually recognize good from bad. NDT is required if performing a penetration study or strength of weld and is performed on a sample basis.
It has been my experience that some people have a talent for discerning good and bad. It doesn't seem to matter which industry (weld, solder, machine, etc.) these people are present. They do not necessarily possess formal training and/or certifications, but are recognized by their peer group as being the "go-to" person when there are questions regarding the acceptance of the product.
My point is what are we trying to establish? Quality of product? Workmanship? Compliance to specifications? Are not all of these attributes reviewed during supplier qualification and first article inspections? If the Customer has accepted you as a supplier based on such specifics then what are we trying to prove?
I once knew a head football coach who stated "I don't know how much you know about football but give me a piece of chalk and a blackboard and I will find out in 30 seconds". I believe I am trying to say that competence may well be self evident!
Boy talk about a soap box! :soap:
Thanks for listning.
Jim Howe

In the beginning, there was the craftsman and the customer. If the craftsman made and kept a good reputation, the customer was happy and the craftsman enjoyed market magnetism.

Later, when products became complex, risky and/or the process for making them was more orchestrated, there came a drive to record what was being done so the good could be repeated, and the bad avoided. Standards, requirements and regulations have become dominions or distractions, based on one's point of view.

Now, it is still (or it should be) the customer's interest first. Are we making a good product? How do we know? How will we make sure it's always good? These are the essential questions that are to be approached in all control, including training.

If it's enough to say "10 years of on-the-job experience has made Roger proficient at the equivalency of ___" then so be it. But to say "competence is self-evident" is risky because it's not evident to me at all unless you explain why it's evident. The product may be good, but the standards want us to describe our plans and practices in making sure it's good.

It occurred to me to use experience to achieve levels of competence like in various trades: apprentice, journeyman, master. With these there may be little formal training but each mastery level will have some sort of testing for competence and depth of knowledge. Can you look up your region's trade practices as guidance for describing your craftspeoples' accomplishments?

In the beginning, there was the craftsman and the customer. If the craftsman made and kept a good reputation, the customer was happy and the craftsman enjoyed market magnetism.

Later, when products became complex, risky and/or the process for making them was more orchestrated, there came a drive to record what was being done so the good could be repeated, and the bad avoided. Standards, requirements and regulations have become dominions or distractions, based on one's point of view.

Now, it is still (or it should be) the customer's interest first. Are we making a good product? How do we know? How will we make sure it's always good? These are the essential questions that are to be approached in all control, including training.

If it's enough to say "10 years of on-the-job experience has made Roger proficient at the equivalency of ___" then so be it. But to say "competence is self-evident" is risky because it's not evident to me at all unless you explain why it's evident. The product may be good, but the standards want us to describe our plans and practices in making sure it's good.

It occurred to me to use experience to achieve levels of competence like in various trades: apprentice, journeyman, master. With these there may be little formal training but each mastery level will have some sort of testing for competence and depth of knowledge. Can you look up your region's trade practices as guidance for describing your craftspeoples' accomplishments?

Jennifer
Your point is well taken but it is still my contention that if I have qualified my supplier and subsequently performed a first article inspection then the idea of competence should not need any further demonstration because i am already a satified customer. I cannot imagine a company paying good money for an incompetent employee. Can You?
Jim

Jennifer
Your point is well taken but it is still my contention that if I have qualified my supplier and subsequently performed a first article inspection then the idea of competence should not need any further demonstration because i am already a satified customer. I cannot imagine a company paying good money for an incompetent employee. Can You?
Jim
I agree with you Jim. I feel the main issue with this clause is documenting how you ensure your employees are "qualified" to perform their assigned tasks. The end product is the validation of your training process, IMO. After that, it's looking at sustained performance and how to improve.
I look at it this way; If the company is showing growth and improved profitability. Coupled with high customer satisfaction marks and an expanding market share or new customers, they must be doing something right.
Incompetent employees can hide the facts for awhile but will be dealt with {unless they are the family members of the owners!}. IMHO if the Managers & Supervisors agree that a person is competent, that's all I need. I don't need a bunch of paperwork or procedures or work instructions. Give me someone that applies themselves 100% with 75% ability, I'll take them over the guy that only applies themself 75% but has 100% ability.

Where I work, not all of our personnel have a formal education....if any. To demonstrate that our personnel are both qualified and competent, we have several tools available:


HR files - including education records, resumes, length of time with the company, etc...simply proves qualfication
Performance appraisals for salary
Job observations for hourly
H&S records - we do have "frequent flyers" (sometimes literally) and they are now being targeted by our H&S Department
Nonconformance and Abnormality Reports - a particular crew?, a particular product?, a particular time of day?
Customer Complaints - a particular crew?, a particular product?, a particular time of day?
Discussions with direct reports

In section 6.2.2 (e) of the standard it states that you have to keep appropriate records of education, training etc.

Maybe I am oversimplifying things but I thought the key word in the quote above was appropriate

Who decides what is appropriate? The H.R. person? The ISO Mgt. Rep.? The Big Boss?


:topic: For my job posting, a four year college degree was required. I submitted my resume which states that I have a Bachelor of Science degree. I did not submit transcripts and as far as I know, H.R. did not confirm with my university that I received my diploma. Do I have appropriate education? Yes - my resume matches my job description requirements. How far does an organization GO to ensure that the employees have done what they say they have? -- end of rant - back to our regularly scheduled discussion of educational information being supplied by employees now.

Maybe I am oversimplifying things but I thought the key word in the quote above was appropriate

Who decides what is appropriate? The H.R. person? The ISO Mgt. Rep.? The Big Boss?

As much as I would like to say it is up to the Organization to determine what is "appropriate", that is not always the case. For due diligence purposes, for example, we need to have certifcates for our crane operators indicating that they have successfully completed their training and are qualified and competent (demonstrated via testing) to operate the cranes. Same thing for our forklift drivers.

For my job posting, a four year college degree was required. I submitted my resume which states that I have a Bachelor of Science degree. I did not submit transcripts and as far as I know, H.R. did not confirm with my university that I received my diploma. Do I have appropriate education? Yes - my resume matches my job description requirements. How far does an organization GO to ensure that the employees have done what they say they have? -- end of rant - back to our regularly scheduled discussion of educational information being supplied by employees now.

Your Organization has stated that a 4-year college degree is "appropriate" for your position. Unless the caveat of "...or suitable work experience..." (i.e., your job current job performance as documented via an appraisal) is present, I, as an auditor, would feel that you have not fully met the requirements for your job if a copy of your degree is missing. A resume is simply a dissertation of what you have done, but does not include the evidence. It does not prove comptency and barely proves qualification.

Look at it like this....in order to legally drive a car, you require a driver's license, that is the requirement. There is no caveat of "suitable driving experience." But we all hear the stories about people pulled over who do not have their licenses or are currently under suspension. They are fined accordingly for complying with the law, the requirement.

Just my thought processes, such as they are today...

Look at it like this....in order to legally drive a car, you require a driver's license, that is the requirement. There is no caveat of "suitable driving experience." But we all hear the stories about people pulled over who do not have their licenses or are currently under suspension. They are fined accordingly for complying with the law, the requirement.

:topic: But at the same time, how many folks out there meet the "requirement", but shouldn't be driving? I use this illustration when talking about the difference between "qualified" and "competent".

:topic: But at the same time, how many folks out there meet the "requirement", but shouldn't be driving? I use this illustration when talking about the difference between "qualified" and "competent".

I, too, use a driver's license as an example for the difference between qualifed and competent.

But my example still holds true. The law is simply to have a driver's license....doesn't talk about being a good driver.

To use an example closer to home, how many of us have been audited by certified auditors from our Registrar but find them to be lacking in competency?

The job requirement for little_cee is simply to have a 4-year college degree. If that is a requirement but can not be effectively demonstrated as being met, how can we assume her to be qualified? And then, further to this, what are the criteria for her to be competent? Not meaning to pick on you, Stacey! :o

My organization, for example, uses the job requirements (qualifications) as a foundation for performance appraisals (comptency). If I do not meet the qualifications, how can my competency be assessed?

But my example still holds true. The law is simply to have a driver's license....doesn't talk about being a good driver.

Indeed, that is the purpose of the off-topic. But little_cee also makes a valid point with:



...I submitted my resume which states that I have a Bachelor of Science degree. I did not submit transcripts and as far as I know, H.R. did not confirm with my university that I received my diploma. Do I have appropriate education? Yes - my resume matches my job description requirements. How far does an organization GO to ensure that the employees have done what they say they have? -- end of rant - back to our regularly scheduled discussion of educational information being supplied by employees now.

This is in part why I maintain the only way to "prove" competence is to look at the output of the task. Job descriptions are great, and so are performance apprasials, provided they truly are focused on the task and the demonstrated competency.

Indeed, that is the purpose of the off-topic. But little_cee also makes a valid point with:



This is in part why I maintain the only way to "prove" competence is to look at the output of the task. Job descriptions are great, and so are performance apprasials, provided they truly are focused on the task and the demonstrated competency.

Having theory (like weld symbol reading and properly using the forms) and practical (physical examples) weld tests can, in my view, replace formal education and training as evidence of competency. This combination of tests can also be made for a great many production jobs. Unless there is a higher standard (is there a higher directive in this case?) then the company can determine what works.

Determining what kind of competency evidence to use could be done on the same premise as deciding how often to calibrate equipment: frequency of use, critical contribution to the process and a failure rate (which escalates at a certain time span) for when the thing isn't maintained. LIkewise, if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable, he or she may not need any more reinforcing training as long as no other factor determines that.

If a production worker has been performing at acceptable levels and never misses a trick, does that "grandfather" into historical evidence of competency? Maybe, but then we must ask:

1. Will other performers be compared to that level, or will performance be more subjective?

2. Do we expect that time away from the task will dull the skill level? And if so, what is the curve if diminished skill we expect, at what point? This is for the sake of recerts, you see.

I truly don't want to "nuke the thing", as we said on my ship. However, we must show evidence of competency: a relative matter, IMHO.

I have read all of the responses an they all make their point, however I maintain it is this sort of "silly" requirement that are driving folks away from the standard. Are there any other requirements in the standard that any of you feel the same way about? I would be interested in your or your companies outlook regarding these sort of requirements. Folks there has to be a reason why companies are not lined up at the gate to sign up!

I have read all of the responses an they all make their point, however I maintain it is this sort of "silly" requirement that are driving folks away from the standard. Are there any other requirements in the standard that any of you feel the same way about? I would be interested in your or your companies outlook regarding these sort of requirements. Folks there has to be a reason why companies are not lined up at the gate to sign up!

I have spoken with a number of people who think the ISO registration process is burdensome, constrictive, and an overall nuisance with little value.

What I suspect we have is a tendency to make our QMS in a way that answers the standard. But an unfriendly, restrictive program is sure to gain animosity, and rightly so.

The term QMS (Quality Management System) is, in fact, so misunderstood that it is often held with suspicion. There is good reason for that, where systems have been made that are uncomfortable, hard to use or don't make much sense.

It is so much better to document the good practices that the organization does, tighten up that which is deemed important to the degree that it will balance control with value, and call it an operating system.

It is quite possible to do this if the entire organization is involved in the effort, even casually. Asking rather than telling can help us develop a program that is not dictative, but simply represents our high standards to the outside world. This is, IMHO, what a QMS (or Business Operating System, or what have you) should be about.

If you are questioning the value of such an effort, I have to ask again: why is your organization considering registration?

I'm sorry, I mistakenly addressed my last question to an observer.

I'm sorry, I mistakenly addressed my last question to an observer.


Jennifer, it is quite all right and a legimate question. The views I express are my own not the company I work for. I see the same kind of division over six-sigma. Some of the contributors to these forums and others seem to have some deeply rooted doubts about six-sigma. I have the same doubts but yet most of us have paid our dues to an organization that actively pushes the concept. I believe this is the great thing about these forums is our coming together to share information even though we may have oppossing view points. Who knows what tomorrow may bring. Maybe I will grow and change my mind but then again maybe I will become a democrat! :lmao:
I enjoy your responses, keep them coming! Always remember that I am a big boy and my a__ is as wide as my shoulders.
Thanks You!

Having theory (like weld symbol reading and properly using the forms) and practical (physical examples) weld tests can, in my view, replace formal education and training as evidence of competency. This combination of tests can also be made for a great many production jobs. Unless there is a higher standard (is there a higher directive in this case?) then the company can determine what works.

Determining what kind of competency evidence to use could be done on the same premise as deciding how often to calibrate equipment: frequency of use, critical contribution to the process and a failure rate (which escalates at a certain time span) for when the thing isn't maintained. LIkewise, if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable, he or she may not need any more reinforcing training as long as no other factor determines that.

If a production worker has been performing at acceptable levels and never misses a trick, does that "grandfather" into historical evidence of competency? Maybe, but then we must ask:

1. Will other performers be compared to that level, or will performance be more subjective?

2. Do we expect that time away from the task will dull the skill level? And if so, what is the curve if diminished skill we expect, at what point? This is for the sake of recerts, you see.

I truly don't want to "nuke the thing", as we said on my ship. However, we must show evidence of competency: a relative matter, IMHO.

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer...Now I know why I named my first child after you. :yes:

But allow me, if I may, to expand on your ideas with my own.

In reality, nothing listed in 6.2.2 (education, training, experience and skills) proves competence. They might show the ability to be competent, but not the existence of competence itself. I have always maintained that these things are inputs. Competence is an output. You can only measure an output by looking at the output. As in your case of the factory worker. How do you know the worker is competent? As you say: "...if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable..." Your'e measuring output, and basing competency on that. I can have all of the skills, training, eduction and experience, but I might be lazy and make mistakes. The auditor asks you to prove my competence and you show the auditor my training file. Yep, it shows I have all it takes to make excellent product. But my production records show a different story. When asked to show comptency records, you should go to production records first.

I have a degree in Industrial Management. I received it in 1978. Now, how much of that do you think I remember? Yet, many places require a degree. Why?

Is evaluating competency subjective? Only as far as the output is subjective.

Jennifer, Jennifer, Jennifer...Now I know why I named my first child after you. :yes:

This makes me laugh! :lol:

But allow me, if I may, to expand on your ideas with my own.

In reality, nothing listed in 6.2.2 (education, training, experience and skills) proves competence. They might show the ability to be competent, but not the existence of competence itself. I have always maintained that these things are inputs. Competence is an output. You can only measure an output by looking at the output. As in your case of the factory worker. How do you know the worker is competent? As you say: "...if a production worker's performance has been consistently acceptable..." Your'e measuring output, and basing competency on that. I can have all of the skills, training, eduction and experience, but I might be lazy and make mistakes. The auditor asks you to prove my competence and you show the auditor my training file. Yep, it shows I have all it takes to make excellent product. But my production records show a different story. When asked to show comptency records, you should go to production records first.

I have a degree in Industrial Management. I received it in 1978. Now, how much of that do you think I remember? Yet, many places require a degree. Why?

Is evaluating competency subjective? Only as far as the output is subjective.

These are very good points.

In truth, training proves nothing. We assess to "prove" retention, and reassess later to "prove" maintenance of that accurate retention. Thus, my suggesting practical skills tests may be fine in some cases.

Really, it all depends on how bad this or that level of "proof" is needed or desired. What is the point of it, and how much effort brings a good balance between the endeavor and the value? This is a question each organization must answer for themselves, but may feel harnessed by standards like ISO.

Indeed, it's small wonder these standards have given many organizations a bellyache. :rolleyes:

Getting back to some of the original issues, I have the following questions and comments:

1. Doesn't 6.2.2 only apply to personnel whose activities impact the conformity of the product or service? If so, do the senior directors really impact the quality of the product? Indirectly, they could make decisions that could result in quality problems e.g. a purchasing manager deciding on a supplier for raw material that ultimately causes quality problems but it may not be considered an "activity" impacting quality. A different approach is to determine which jobs impact quality and those individuals would need training records.

2. Assuming the company is a viable business and has a history of acceptable quality, the current workers must be qualified and capable regardless of their education, training etc. Why not just grandfather the current workers but at the same time outline what training etc. is needed to maintain or improve their skills? At the same time, why not document what skills, education, training etc. would be required for any new employee for that position and create a job description?

Using the welding example, a certification is great but wouldn't you rather take the prospective employee out into the shop and do some welds in order to determine if qualified? The job description would have to be flexible enough to hire someone from a welding school who could be hired as an apprentice until experienced or someone who can demonstrate they already have the experience.

It is not as if you would fire your current workers just because you cannot produce the training records for someone who has done the job for the last 20 years. I agree with Jim Howe in that the certain auditors can make the standards silly enough that it defeats the purpose of them.

Bill Pflanz

1. Doesn't 6.2.2 only apply to personnel whose activities impact the conformity of the product or service? If so, do the senior directors really impact the quality of the product? Indirectly, they could make decisions that could result in quality problems e.g. a purchasing manager deciding on a supplier for raw material that ultimately causes quality problems but it may not be considered an "activity" impacting quality. A different approach is to determine which jobs impact quality and those individuals would need training records.

Does the Management Representative impact the quality of the product or service? Should not a qualified and competent person be in the role of Management Representative? While senior directors or management may not be the one tightening the final screws or tagging up the finished product, they are, in my opinion, just as important to the final quality as the person on the floor.

ISO 9001:2000 is based upon 8 principles...the second one is Leadership. Management must not only determine what direction the company will go in, but must also lead us there. They set the pace. They set the example. They must demonstrate an unwavering committment to the management system...so why should they be exempt from providing evidence of their qualifications?

If the company, however, opts to hire someone who may not meet the formal education requirements, but meets the work experience, it is a simple as placing a note in the individual's file explaining why they are deemed qualified and the education requirement is exempt.

To determine which jobs impact quality, is, IMHO, the wrong path to take....but it is an option, I suppose, for organizations just starting out on the quest for ISO 9001:2000 registration. More often than naught, we read in the Cove how people are tired of Quality thought of as being the Quality Department's responsibility, how it is strongly felt that Quality is everyone's job...to determine which jobs impact quality seems like a step backwards.

2. Assuming the company is a viable business and has a history of acceptable quality, the current workers must be qualified and capable regardless of their education, training etc. Why not just grandfather the current workers but at the same time outline what training etc. is needed to maintain or improve their skills? At the same time, why not document what skills, education, training etc. would be required for any new employee for that position and create a job description?

That's what we've done. In the past, we never had job descriptions, but since the expansion of our family, we have been directed to develop them. We have done so, stating, however, that our current employees are qualified and competent and that the job description/requirements will apply only to new/transferred personnel.

That's what we've done. In the past, we never had job descriptions, but since the expansion of our family, we have been directed to develop them. We have done so, stating, however, that our current employees are qualified and competent and that the job description/requirements will apply only to new/transferred personnel.

We did not have job descriptions either. But HR promises that this is what the future holds. My concerns are two fold.

Why put into place job descriptions, that, if applied across the board would disqualify some of your current best people. Have we not learned anything?
For example, If we were to say that all weld applicants must have a High School diploma then we would be forced to grandfather current welders and possibly miss some very worthwhile welders through the application process itself. Or better yet all QA Engineers must have an "MBA"? If we were able to obtain good welders in the past without the diploma why screw that up? Why must we suddenly try to impress the "standard keepers"?

My second problem is with the testing. I fervently believe that the testing should be both a written and a practical, assuming the applicant can get past the new minimum requirements. In the past I have been called upon to author such written and practical test. The criticism was that the test were too difficult. Certain applicants could not score high enough on the written (80%) to be elegible for the practical. But if the applicant cannot identify a weld symbol how will they know what kind of weld is required on their practicle.

I realize that my first concern seems to contradict my second but my point is to show just how difficult this task is.

I like Bills idea of somehow being able to identify raw talent and hire as an apprentice, but I fear most companies would refuse to make that investment. The fear is that as soon as they train the apprentice he will leave for greener pastures. Got To Be a way. How about third party testing and applicant screening?

Why put into place job descriptions, that, if applied across the board would disqualify some of your current best people. Have we not learned anything?

For example, If we were to say that all weld applicants must have a High School diploma then we would be forced to grandfather current welders and possibly miss some very worthwhile welders through the application process itself. Or better yet all QA Engineers must have an "MBA"? If we were able to obtain good welders in the past without the diploma why screw that up? Why must we suddenly try to impress the "standard keepers"?

That's why I said that our newly created job descriptions come with a caveat. They apply only to new/transferred hires, not existing personnel. However, you raise a good point regarding past hiring practices - if they were good, why are we "fixing" them? The job description is usually set in stone...a quality engineer is a quality engineer is a quality engineer within an organization. However, the job requirements are basically part of the organization's wish list...the ideal candidate has X-Y years of experience, a Bachelors of XXX, M-something or other, a Ph.D in basketweaving and volunteers 10 hours a week at the local museum dedicated some long dead person.

However, just because a person meets all of the requirements doesn't mean that they're a good fit for the position. For my position, as an example, there was someone who deemed to be more qualified and was already familiar with the industry and processes. I, however, was an unknown but during the interview process, had a much better rapport with my boss-to-be and the management committee.

So, our practice is now if we hire someone who does not meet all of the requirements, we put a note in the file indicating that we know they do not meet all of the requirements, but follow that up with the evidence of the individual's competency.

I like Bills idea of somehow being able to identify raw talent and hire as an apprentice, but I fear most companies would refuse to make that investment. The fear is that as soon as they train the apprentice he will leave for greener pastures. Got To Be a way. How about third party testing and applicant screening?

Once upon a time, my organization had an apprenticeship program. And as soon as the ticket was obtained...BAM!...off the person went to a cleaner environment with better pay. Testing and screening only go so far. They do not evaluate a person's ethical behaviour, which why we briefly considered having "contracts" with apprentices. At the end of their apprenticeship, they would work for us for x-number of years...however that is too much like having people indentured...slaves...

The subject of how to obtain, train, and retain new talent has come to light again as much of our skilled trades people are just a few years from retirement. No solution as of yet, but it was a good discussion to sit in on.

While earning a B.S. in applied technical education and while serving ASQ as an associate exam editor for the CMI, I have learned how challenging it is to make a good test.

When the complaints surfaced that the tests were too hard, did you hear why they were too hard? Were there too many big words, were the choices too nearly the same, what? If you have no details, it serves little purpose to say "Your test was too hard" and you should not be discouraged from trying again.

I support testing that encompasses all the quality influential parts of his or her job, including those involving the written word. If a trade skilled person looks at a drawing to do the work, by all means that person should be asked to show ability to read a drawing in approximately the same way as he or she would do in the process.

I am against requiring such things as high school diplomas and other degrees, because I am also deathly tired of being rejected for opportunities because I don't have (among other things) a Master's. How in the world can we compete among such predispositions when we might be quite capable of doing the work? Ask me, test me, but don't reject me outright. :mad:

I'll go back to the subjectivity issue. The standard, blissfully does not dictate what kind of training program to build. Really, we mustn't "nuke" the thing, but we should have a structure in place that both meets our spirit and needs, and lends confidence that what we do results in reliably good product. The greater the need, like nuclear welding, the more stringent the requirements and testing. In my view, the standard allows enough wiggle room for us to say "this is what we do, and this is why we are assured that it works."

What does this mean? Different things for different organizations, but I would look at the current method for ensuring competence and ask myself how much effort I am willing to go to for the sake of meeting the standard, which only has these "shalls:" (sorry in advance if I am tiresome)

a. Determine competence for personnel whose work affects quality
b. Train or take other action to satisfy the needs
c. Evaluate effectiveness of the actions taken
d. Make sure the people know why their trainign is relevant
e. Maintain appropriate records.

I re-read it. "Experience of people" and "Tacit and explicit knowledge" are the top two considerations for planning education and training. The ability to meet changes is also stressed. I would certainly take good past performance into account; after all, this person has been "proven" by X years of Y flaws or less, with Z rework levels. If you can show that, wonderful. But I wouldn't try it unless there was a paper trail of on-the-job success rates supporting this approach.

Is that good enough? That's a question for the registrar, I guess, since this all started with defining the limits of ISO requirements.

I suppose the bottom line is that this is a standard, in which participation is optional. Customer satisfaction is also optional, as Deming would say. So is success. The nasty job we have is managing to meet all three in a reasonably comfortable way.

I like Bills idea of somehow being able to identify raw talent and hire as an apprentice, but I fear most companies would refuse to make that investment. The fear is that as soon as they train the apprentice he will leave for greener pastures. Got To Be a way. How about third party testing and applicant screening?

:soap:
The way to solve the problem of employees leaving for greener pastures is to bring back loyalty to the employee with fair wages and then there will be loyalty to the company. We reap what we sow.

Bill

:soap:
The way to solve the problem of employees leaving for greener pastures is to bring back loyalty to the employee with fair wages and then there will be loyalty to the company. We reap what we sow.

Bill

It's true that money is important, especially since we have learned that money is how management measures value, and things have become so expensive.

There's lots more, though. Here are a couple of references:

http://www.careerjournal.com/columnists/workwound/20040624-workwound.html?columnists_whatsnew

http://www.morebusiness.com/running_your_business/management/d960776838.brc

Quite right, we do reap what we sow.

As a QAE on the P-II missile program at Goodyear Aerospace a few years back we were writing test procedures for the ET's to use when testing the RADAR units. The question was how much depth is required in a test procedure given that all ET's, at a minimum, must have an Associate of Applied Science in Electronic Technology Degree.

The theory was that the more formal training the test operator had the less detail was needed in the test procedure. For example, does the test procedure need to have a step by step hook up of an oscilloscope? Should not the ET possess such knowledge already by virtue of his training?
As a possessor of such a degree the answer was obvious that the procedure need not detail how to connect an oscilloscope. This theory was presented for Customer approval and after some debate was accepted!

The procedures were then written in a much more generic way because the ET's were deemed competent enough to perform certain task without step by step procedures.

All this took place in 1985, in a MIL-Q -9858A environment. Is there any thing really knew under the sun? :D

As a QAE on the P-II missile program at Goodyear Aerospace a few years back we were writing test procedures for the ET's to use when testing the RADAR units. The question was how much depth is required in a test procedure given that all ET's, at a minimum, must have an Associate of Applied Science in Electronic Technology Degree.

The theory was that the more formal training the test operator had the less detail was needed in the test procedure. For example, does the test procedure need to have a step by step hook up of an oscilloscope? Should not the ET possess such knowledge already by virtue of his training?
As a possessor of such a degree the answer was obvious that the procedure need not detail how to connect an oscilloscope. This theory was presented for Customer approval and after some debate was accepted!

The procedures were then written in a much more generic way because the ET's were deemed competent enough to perform certain task without step by step procedures.

All this took place in 1985, in a MIL-Q -9858A environment. Is there any thing really knew under the sun? :D

This gives me the feeling that ETs were supposed to "know" how to perform tests.

I would no sooner entrust missile testing to such intuition than sprout wings and fly on my own. I do hope the procedures have been rewritten by now! Gracious... :rolleyes:

The procedure need not detail how to connect the oscilloscope, but if it's possible to get the thing wrong, the procedure should refer to the manual or other directive: "Set up oscilloscope per XYZ". Or some such clause, so long as one is careful it can be written in a way that does not need constant revision.

This gives me the feeling that ETs were supposed to "know" how to perform tests.

I would no sooner entrust missile testing to such intuition than sprout wings and fly on my own. I do hope the procedures have been rewritten by now! Gracious... :rolleyes:

The procedure need not detail how to connect the oscilloscope, but if it's possible to get the thing wrong, the procedure should refer to the manual or other directive: "Set up oscilloscope per XYZ". Or some such clause, so long as one is careful it can be written in a way that does not need constant revision.

Jennifer, Of course the radar guided missile is long since replaced with the GPS type. None the less, and more to the point, do you not agree that at some point you draw the line on what is put into a procedure and/or a detailed work instruction? If we must detail every step then why be concerned about competence at all? I have seen procedures that are so detailed they are largely ignored. They cost the company money and serve no useful purpose.

If the oscilloscope is not connected properly the waveform will be incorrect. The photo of the wave form became part of the test report.

There has to be a limit on what we put into procedures based on competence levels.

Jim

Jennifer, Of course the radar guided missile is long since replaced with the GPS type. None the less, and more to the point, do you not agree that at some point you draw the line on what is put into a procedure and/or a detailed work instruction? If we must detail every step then why be concerned about competence at all? I have seen procedures that are so detailed they are largely ignored. They cost the company money and serve no useful purpose.

If the oscilloscope is not connected properly the waveform will be incorrect. The photo of the wave form became part of the test report.

There has to be a limit on what we put into procedures based on competence levels.

Jim


One of the most basic things to remember when attempting any type of communication:

Know your audience and craft your attempt accordingly.

Jennifer, Of course the radar guided missile is long since replaced with the GPS type. None the less, and more to the point, do you not agree that at some point you draw the line on what is put into a procedure and/or a detailed work instruction? If we must detail every step then why be concerned about competence at all? I have seen procedures that are so detailed they are largely ignored. They cost the company money and serve no useful purpose.

If the oscilloscope is not connected properly the waveform will be incorrect. The photo of the wave form became part of the test report.

There has to be a limit on what we put into procedures based on competence levels.

Jim


I freely admit I tend to "nuke" things.

Still, in some cases I'd say it was worthwhile to include a blurb like "Set up oscilloscope per (manual, for example)." I'll defend myself in two arguments.

1. Are there different oscilloscope models, and is it possible to apply a different setting and get a different reading? Is it possible that the ET used a different brand or model in school than on the job? The level of this risk should be weighed before deciding evry ET will know just the right thing to do. I don't use oscilloscopes so I thought of them as I do unltrsound testers, which certainly can be misused or set up incorrectly. If an oscilloscope can't be set up wrong, then never mind.

2. Certain kinds of testing warrant more care and overall persnickityness than others. When I did NDT on surface ship steam systems, we were required to have our procedures open while doing the work. Did we read every word before doing each job? No, but they were there because it was possible to misuse the chemicals and equipment and high pressure steam leaks are very bad. On submarines, all valves used for critical systems are tested singly. Thus a hardware store-looking valve becomes very expensive. But if it's going to keep a sub where it belongs, it's worthwhile. Notice, we haven't lost any subs to repair problems since the Thresher.

We were discussing missile testing. If we were discussing testing lightbulbs or radios, perhaps I wouldn't go to this trouble depending what the light bulbs or radios were used for. Do you see, it's all about weighing how great the need is for nothing to go wrong.

Huff puff Getting off my high horse now.

I freely admit I tend to "nuke" things.

Still, in some cases I'd say it was worthwhile to include a blurb like "Set up oscilloscope per (manual, for example)." I'll defend myself in two arguments.

1. Are there different oscilloscope models, and is it possible to apply a different setting and get a different reading? Is it possible that the ET used a different brand or model in school than on the job? The level of this risk should be weighed before deciding evry ET will know just the right thing to do. I don't use oscilloscopes so I thought of them as I do unltrsound testers, which certainly can be misused or set up incorrectly. If an oscilloscope can't be set up wrong, then never mind.

2. Certain kinds of testing warrant more care and overall persnickityness than others. When I did NDT on surface ship steam systems, we were required to have our procedures open while doing the work. Did we read every word before doing each job? No, but they were there because it was possible to misuse the chemicals and equipment and high pressure steam leaks are very bad. On submarines, all valves used for critical systems are tested singly. Thus a hardware store-looking valve becomes very expensive. But if it's going to keep a sub where it belongs, it's worthwhile. Notice, we haven't lost any subs to repair problems since the Thresher.

We were discussing missile testing. If we were discussing testing lightbulbs or radios, perhaps I wouldn't go to this trouble depending what the light bulbs or radios were used for. Do you see, it's all about weighing how great the need is for nothing to go wrong.

Huff puff Getting off my high horse now.


Of course there are many different models and name brands of oscilloscopes. But they all have the same function: to display and measure the waveform. If the ET connected the wires wrong then the wave form would not match the required waveform. If the ET had some or all of the switches, dials and other gizmos set wrong then again waveform would not match. I will say that the test procedure would dictate which make and model to use.

It comes down to this. If you hire an ET to perform a task and he cannot set up and use an oscilloscope then fire him.

Perhaps this was a bad example. I was attempting to show that in 1985 competency was an issue.

I will close with this thought. If what we are doing has no impact on bottom line then it should not be done. If we must measure competency then let it have an impact.

I like the expression "nuke it" :blowup:

Of course there are many different models and name brands of oscilloscopes. But they all have the same function: to display and measure the waveform. If the ET connected the wires wrong then the wave form would not match the required waveform. If the ET had some or all of the switches, dials and other gizmos set wrong then again waveform would not match. I will say that the test procedure would dictate which make and model to use.

It comes down to this. If you hire an ET to perform a task and he cannot set up and use an oscilloscope then fire him.

Perhaps this was a bad example. I was attempting to show that in 1985 competency was an issue.

I will close with this thought. If what we are doing has no impact on bottom line then it should not be done. If we must measure competency then let it have an impact.

I like the expression "nuke it" :blowup:

"Nuke it" is an expression from my last ship, based on the extraordinary reliability requirements of nuclear systems. Of course lesser requirements apply as the need for reliability more equalizes with the need to reduce costs. Where testing things like missilies or other life-critical products are concerned, I would be more inclined to nuke it than not. But we agree that these needs are relative to the needs of the product and user versus the object's complexity and the profit margin.

I don't use oscilloscopes, so I suppose I'm showing my ignorance petticoats here. If it's not possible to set them up wrong, then of course there's no reason to even mention a manual. If they can be set up wrong but the ETs are trained and their skills with the oscilloscopes are validated, and that proves to be a reliable policy, okey-dokey.

:topic: I've been interested in what goes wrong with testing for quite awhile. I have wondered, was the testing for the Ford Explorer tires designed to reflect the conditions of actual use? That is, did the testing take into consideration the added torque and heat generation associated with the Explorer's right rear wheel, which drives the vehicle? Or was there insufficient coordination between the Bridgestone and Ford engineering groups to design a test that assessed reliability under better represented driving conditions?

It occurred to me, you see, that the problems with tire failure were not just due to manufacturing conditions or underinflating tires, though these were apparently critical factors because the tire problems have subsided.

These subjects seem related to me because designing a test is also fraught with risks. And there can be unacceptably great expense if the testing is not done right. And so I tend to err on the side of caution. I'd pay a few dollars more for my products if it meant they would be tested better. :frust:

"Nuke it" is an expression from my last ship, based on the extraordinary reliability requirements of nuclear systems. Of course lesser requirements apply as the need for reliability more equalizes with the need to reduce costs. Where testing things like missilies or other life-critical products are concerned, I would be more inclined to nuke it than not. But we agree that these needs are relative to the needs of the product and user versus the object's complexity and the profit margin.

I don't use oscilloscopes, so I suppose I'm showing my ignorance petticoats here. If it's not possible to set them up wrong, then of course there's no reason to even mention a manual. If they can be set up wrong but the ETs are trained and their skills with the oscilloscopes are validated, and that proves to be a reliable policy, okey-dokey.

:topic: I've been interested in what goes wrong with testing for quite awhile. I have wondered, was the testing for the Ford Explorer tires designed to reflect the conditions of actual use? That is, did the testing take into consideration the added torque and heat generation associated with the Explorer's right rear wheel, which drives the vehicle? Or was there insufficient coordination between the Bridgestone and Ford engineering groups to design a test that assessed reliability under better represented driving conditions?

It occurred to me, you see, that the problems with tire failure were not just due to manufacturing conditions or underinflating tires, though these were apparently critical factors because the tire problems have subsided.

These subjects seem related to me because designing a test is also fraught with risks. And there can be unacceptably great expense if the testing is not done right. And so I tend to err on the side of caution. I'd pay a few dollars more for my products if it meant they would be tested better. :frust:

I don't know about the Ford Explorer situation but I can tell you that Ford and/or Firestone paid to put a new set of Goodyear Wranglers on my Ford Ranger pickup. Also when I worked at Firestone they had a rather elaborate testing program for all new designs. It included lab testing of dissections, x-rays, pressure test, dynamic test on the machine (every so many hours of run time the speed would increase as would the load), and finally road test at a special track, I believe in Texas. Most of these test were destruct in nature. I am sure there were others but these are all I can recall.

In my mind the situation was never resolved to my satisfaction. Was it the tires or was it the high center of gravity on the explorer. There were arguments on both sides.

I don't know about the Ford Explorer situation but I can tell you that Ford and/or Firestone paid to put a new set of Goodyear Wranglers on my Ford Ranger pickup. Also when I worked at Firestone they had a rather elaborate testing program for all new designs. It included lab testing of dissections, x-rays, pressure test, dynamic test on the machine (every so many hours of run time the speed would increase as would the load), and finally road test at a special track, I believe in Texas. Most of these test were destruct in nature. I am sure there were others but these are all I can recall.

In my mind the situation was never resolved to my satisfaction. Was it the tires or was it the high center of gravity on the explorer. There were arguments on both sides.

Oh, thank you for that insight, especially the part about increasing speed and load as the test progressed. My only remaining question is then were the acceptable limits appropriately placed? These were apparently exceeded under certain road conditions.

Of course, what we had was a brain-dead "solution" to the rollover problem by deflating the tires a few PSI. I suppose the tires were tested at their designed inflation, not at the inflation Ford recommended (I wonder how many engineers squacked about that one).

Lastly, there was the plant that was accused of using poor manufacturing practices: outdated materials, etc.

I'm not satisfied with the total outcome either. It was probably a combination of at least two factors: poor coordination among automaker and supplier (testing not designed for the lower tire pressure), and manufacturing practices. Too bad we can't learn from this as a community. To protect confidentiality we must each make our very own mistakes. :(

No wonder our cars have so many flaws.

Subs, ET's, Nukes, wow what a conversation!
One thing to keep in mind is the complexity of the task being performed. When I worked on the Trident I missiles we had WP's {weapons instructions} open and being read to us. We had to use the "Two Man Rule" and once a step was read we had to acknowledge with "Understand", then perform the step and say "Check" and the reader responded "Check Aye". You have numerous lives in jeopardy if you screw something up, you may endanger the entire ship.
How many companies could survive in a production environment having to operate with that level of control? Not many.
Now granted, most of us do not work on nuclear missiles, nor on subsafe or weapons systems. We do not need elaborate WI's and due to the repetitiveness of day to day operations, we really don't need to look at the WI's.
You have to evaluate how much instruction is needed or required, document it in a manner that allows different levels of absorption to take place, and that promotes favorable repitition.
IMO it all goes back to the skill levels. If you want to use the military as an example {ET's} look at the money and time spent on training and it's intense training. ET's go through Basic Electronics & Electricity training {BE&E} that can take 8 months, then you go through Class A school which can be 16 weeks. Then you go to Class C school, which teaches you the specific type or model of equipment, and this can be 16 + weeks. This training is 8 hours a day, 5 days a week and if you are not performing at a certain level they will assign "mandatory" night study. This ensures a level of skills achieved but it's just a beginning.
In the service or production field we don't have the luxury of all the preliminary training, we have to be able to evaluate performance and adjust accordingly.

Randy is right, companies don't have time for a lot of training and bullet-proof procedures... though arguably, more attention to specifics in defining tasks could help avoid a lot of expensive mistakes.

I have often been bemused when confronting the expectation that I would have ESP on the job, know what they wanted and how they wanted it done. I've been told "When I say something, you'll know you're doing it wrong." How profitable is that? Plenty, I suppose, until my ESP fails me. Then what?

I am baffled by an expectation to find the perfect, already-trained and spot-ready employee: just add (orientation) water and stir vigorously--when there can be lots of ways to do the same job but the supervisor actually prefers one (which isn't documented but he/she gives a long verbal instruction and then goes away). I'm further baffled when an employer is so quick, when disappointed, to say "He/she can't do the job--fire him/her."

How much does it cost to recruit, process, orient and gear up a new employee? Does it cost more, or less than just writing down what you want or even going so far as to include a reference to the manual (not all the steps it contains for the task) for a given piece of equipment? Have you empirical data that supports your decision to hire ready-trained employees?

How much more does it cost the employer that gains a reputation for having a revolving door at HR versus a reputation as a primo place to work that attracts, develops and keeps the most promising employees? Is the big exit sign costing more than it would have to do things a little differently?

How much does the cost to train and develop a gifted underling balance against the cost to hire the prepackaged one, who may come with a lot of baggage or a grab bag of bad habits?

I never hear these matters being discussed as a part of the cost of quality. Quality starts with the people doing the work. :soap:

(condensed to show specific points)
If we must detail every step then why be concerned about competence at all? I have seen procedures that are so detailed they are largely ignored. They cost the company money and serve no useful purpose.

If the oscilloscope is not connected properly the waveform will be incorrect. The photo of the wave form became part of the test report.

There has to be a limit on what we put into procedures based on competence levels.

JimPersonally, I don't see anything wrong with having a "bullet-proof" Work Instruction in complete detail, regardless of the task, whether life, health, safety related or something simple and mundane.

The trick is twofold:

Ensuring worker agrees with and performs the task according to the details in the instruction
Ensuring the competence of the worker to perform the task.
Once the worker has been through the task sufficient times to show competency, only certain tasks may require slavishly following and ticking off points similar to pre-flight checklists.

Even then, some "professionals" can still slip up. I recall a time I was drafted to be the "strong back" for our electrical contractor who was installing wiring for some 3-phase motors.

I was up in the rafters holding cables when I heard a mighty oath and then complete silence. When I climbed down to check, I saw the electrician sitting on the floor, stunned. Our vaunted professional had tried to shortcut a connection to the circuit breaker box without cutting current. An arc leaped out and welded his Kleins (lineman's pliers) to the box. The shock knocked him on his kiester.

Checklist type work instructions with verification of understanding, verification of completion etc. are great to use when needed. But, in the real world of manufacturing, in a lot of cases, a work instruction that gives basic work flow, or general direction backed up with on-the-job training is the only thing that will actually work. We, and I am sure many of you, have areas which I will call "hostile environments" where you are not going to be able to stand there with a piece of paper, or in front of a computer terminal. We communicate via radio, and while we may be able to listen to someone give us directions, there are tasks out there that we would be unable to key the mic to confirm that we had, in fact, understood and completed the task nearly as efficiently and effectively as just training that person well to start with. When you run as lean as we do, you cannot safely have that other person tied up reading and checking off a list. We train and train intensively that each of our people are a part of the team, you need to do your job this way and keep an eye on your crewmates to make sure nobody gets hurt.

Can you imagine a policeman trying to chase down a violent offender using a checklist? In other words, if a confirmation required checklist makes sense in your operation (nuclear maintenance) use it, if it makes your process too unwieldy rely on guidance type instructions and lots of training. imho

Even then, some "professionals" can still slip up. I recall a time I was drafted to be the "strong back" for our electrical contractor who was installing wiring for some 3-phase motors.

I was up in the rafters holding cables when I heard a mighty oath and then complete silence. When I climbed down to check, I saw the electrician sitting on the floor, stunned. Our vaunted professional had tried to shortcut a connection to the circuit breaker box without cutting current. An arc leaped out and welded his Kleins (lineman's pliers) to the box. The shock knocked him on his kiester.

:lmao: ...Although it could have been serious, let us be glad the worst thing (I hope) in this story was a lesson in humility.

I was reminded of when, just last night, my brother-in-law (being the most experienced, he's the foreman of the money-saving helper crew) drilled into a 200 amp cable (not powered, thank goodness) while running access holes for garage lighting wire in our father-in-law's new house. Oh dear...all he had to do was drill from the other side of that rafter. $$Cha-ching!!$$

I agree with Wes, so often it's the simple thing that trips us up and certainly we ought not unnecessarily "nuke" our procedures. The writing should be clear but not too wordy (a challenge) and its complexity should suit the need.

But speaking as one who has been asked to figure out inspections as I go along, let us please define what we want so we stand a better chance of getting it.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with having a "bullet-proof" Work Instruction in complete detail, regardless of the task, whether life, health, safety related or something simple and mundane.

The trick is twofold:

Ensuring worker agrees with and performs the task according to the details in the instruction
Ensuring the competence of the worker to perform the task.
Once the worker has been through the task sufficient times to show competency, only certain tasks may require slavishly following and ticking off points similar to pre-flight checklists.

Even then, some "professionals" can still slip up. I recall a time I was drafted to be the "strong back" for our electrical contractor who was installing wiring for some 3-phase motors.

I was up in the rafters holding cables when I heard a mighty oath and then complete silence. When I climbed down to check, I saw the electrician sitting on the floor, stunned. Our vaunted professional had tried to shortcut a connection to the circuit breaker box without cutting current. An arc leaped out and welded his Kleins (lineman's pliers) to the box. The shock knocked him on his kiester.


Ok Wes, I agree but with one reservation cost to produce said procedures. More importantly I recall a personal slip up as well!

We were attempting to rewire the primary power transformer to our
1- megvolt Electron Accellerator from a "delta" to a "Y" configuration in hopes of boosting our beam current. We killed the power at the breaker and proceeded to change the wiring knowing full well what we were doing as we were all trained professionals. When we were done we signaled the man at the breaker to reset. At that instant there was a load bang and tie wraps flew through the air and there was silence and darkness all around. Yes we had inadvertantly "crow-barred" the three phase 440 primary and blew out the mains at the substations. :o

The examples you have given are not examples of inadequate procedures, work instructions, checklists, nor of lack of training. They are examples of complacency and a good example of why we have to rely on the training/experience of our employees - not work instructions. Everyone involved knew better but decided to "cut corners".

Back to the military example for a minute. In all Weapons Instructions there were Cautions and Warnings. It was rumored that for every Caution someone had been hurt or the system damaged and for every Warning a death or system inoperability had occured. You usually found them in areas that were easy to cut corners on - not using proper handling equipment, not grounding yourself, etc.

What good are anti-lock brakes if you don't check their condition and fluid levels at proper intervals? How many of us have seen people driving 75 on the highway with a donut spare on their car?
So how much money do you think went into the development of that car owners manual and the development of the checklist for basic maintenance intervals? How many of us follow it?